Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Well, we're starting to get a better picture now about regressive our current municipal Council is. First, Council slavishly decided to adhere to the Mayor's election promise to prioritize a 0% tax increase - and raided our reserves to keep this fiscally foolish commitment (see: "Bigger, councillors freeze taxes, pass 2015 budget," the Northern Life, March 5, 2015)Then, when potential revenue was staring Council in the face in the form of energy sharing agreements with renewable solar energy firms, Council refused to support the majority of projects ("Councillors feel sidelined in solar planning," the Sudbury Star, July 7, 2015).Now, they've cancelled the money-saving LED streetlight replacement program in the name of short-term fiscal gain (see: "Sudbury's LED streetlight program to go dark," the Sudbury Star, August 12, 2015). This is a deeply idiotic and foolish decision - clearly, the poorly thought out, short term, and largely political priorities of our Council are becoming more important than the long term fiscal health of our community and its residents. Dare I suggest that our previous Council would have had the courage the look out for the longer-term interests of our City?Thank you Councilors Jakubo, Landry-Altmann & Sizer for not supporting this cheap, cynical, politically motivated move (I understand that Councilor McIntosh was not present at last night's vote).(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Friday, August 7, 2015

It’s the day after the debate, and everyone (well, those
paying attention to a 11-week long federal election campaign in August – which probably
isn’t everyone), just everyone, wants to know, “Who won the debate?” And just like the election results in the
2000 Gore vs. Bush stunner south of the border, we don’t really know yet – and will
have to wait until at least some of the hanging chads are counted.

Oh sure – it would be easy to say that since all leaders did
well last night (and they did), that there was no clear winner – but that’s not
the story that Canadians want, and it’s not the story that the media is going
to give them. It may be true – and I
think that most of last night’s viewers, even the partisan ones who would never
admit it, saw a pretty even match in what was undoubtedly one of the best
national leaders debates this country has seen lately (and perhaps that was due
to the absence of the Bloc Quebecois – no offence to Mr. Duceppe and past Bloc
Leaders, but in debates about Canadian issues, getting bogged down about the
rights and interests of a single province can get a little tiresome for those
of us not from that province – but that’s another story, and not the one I want
to tell today).

The Response to the Reaction

But reactions from those watching a debate are generally far
less important than the reaction to those who report on the debates after the
fact. And given that so few viewers
tuned in to last night’s debate, the media reaction to it becomes that much
more important. And for the most part,
the media isn’t interested in policy, facts and figures – their opinions are
nuanced by other matters, including style, flair, who looked the most “Prime
Ministerial” and – importantly – which leaders can boast of “mission
accomplished”.

Trudeau: Mission Accomplished

This morning, upon reviewing the feeds at the NationalNewsWatch aggregator site, it was clear that the media had chosen the winner:
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. And clearly,
more so than any of the other leaders, he accomplished the mission that he had
to perform in last night’s debate.
Admittedly, Trudeau also had the easiest mission – “Don’t look like you
don’t belong”. Sure, Trudeau had a few
verbal missteps, but generally speaking, it’s clear he “belonged” on the
state. And not just belonged – on his
exchange with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair over the Sherbrooke Declaration and the
Clarity Act, Trudeau came across as both in the right, and sympathetic –
largely due to Mulcair’s bullying style.
Clips of this exchange played widely in the media, probably more so than
any other exchange. And although
Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is probably right –
that the Liberals and NDP are pouring gasoline on an unlit fire when they try
to make hay out of Quebec separatism – it’s the exchange that many Canadians
will be talking about today, and most will be mentioning Trudeau in a positive
light.

Harper: Mission Accomplished

Harper, too, largely accomplished his mission. Going into the debate, he knew that he had a
massive target painted on his forehead, so fending off the attacks from his
opponents would be job one. Telling
voters what 4 more years of Conservative government would mean for them really
wasn’t what he needed to do at this time – and he didn’t. But Harper proved to be pretty deft and
deflecting his attackers and defending his record – and drawing a distinction
between himself and Trudeau and Mulcair.
That he was less than truthful on more than one occasion wasn’t nearly
as important as looking honest and comfortable.

Mulcair: Experiencing Slight Turbulence

Mulcair, on the other hand, had a bit of more difficult
mission. With the NDP leading in the
polls, but with a sense that Canadians still don’t really know what Tom Mulcair
and the NDP are all about, Mulcair had to make the pitch that he is the de
facto Prime Minister in waiting. For the
most part, he did this, but he experienced the most setbacks of any of the
leaders, in my opinion. The exchange
with Trudeau over the Clarity Act was one, but Mulcair also experienced a
horrible stumble when facing off against Green Party leader Elizabeth May over
the Kinder-Morgan pipeline. And while
that’s a pretty regionally-based issue that voters along the coast in B.C.
might get excited about, the exchange with May itself left Mulcair looking
slippery, and not wanting to be pinned down on making a decision. May dominated him and made him look
weak. Later, Mulcair tried to win back a
little of what he lost in that exchange by declaring “climate change” to be the
biggest challenge facing Canadians – but the damage was already done. While Mulcair might have looked fairly “Prime
Ministerial”, it’s difficult to make the case that he can brag about “mission
accomplished”.

May: Flight Cancelled - or Just Delayed?

May had the hardest mission to fulfill – and it doesn’t
appear right now that she accomplished it.
May had to make the case to the media that she belongs in all of the
upcoming debates. Right now, the Globe
and Mail, the Munk Debates and TVA have all refused to allow May on their
stages, and will only host the other 3 national party leaders (although Gilles
Duceppe has been invited to the TVA debate).
Those debates will be taking place later in the election cycle, and more
Canadians will be paying attention. With
May’s participation in those debates, once again the Green Party will find
itself marginalized by the media – and by voters – at a more critical time in
the election cycle.

To convince the other debate organizers to invite her, May
needed to deliver a knockout blow against either Harper or Mulcair. She needed to dominate the debate in such a
way that the media columnists and pundits would be talking about Elizabeth May
in last night’s news casts and in this morning’s papers. In that respect, May failed miserably. While she was arguably the best debater on
stage, and the one who made the most prescient evidence-based observations, she
was unable to deliver anything close to a the knockout needed for the media to
stand up and pay attention.

May's Secondary Mission: On Target

What’s interesting, however, is that May not have realized
what her mission actually was. You see,
unlike the other national parties, the Greens are running a somewhat more
scaled down national campaign with more limited ambitions. Without the same money or media interest as
the other parties – and fighting against a firm trend in the mainstream media
to continue to marginalize the Greens – May might have had a different mission
in mind going into last night’s debate.
It’s really no secret that most of the seats the Greens are gunning for
are located in B.C.’s lower mainland and on Vancouver Island. To win there, May and the Greens need to make
the case that they have the interests of British Columbians in mind moreso than
the other national leaders. With the NDP
polling high throughout Canada’s westernmost province, clearly Mulcair was just
as much of a target for May as Harper was.

With this in mind, May’s exchange with Mulcair over the
Kinder-Morgan pipeline – which didn’t deliver the knockout blow she needed to
make a case with the media – will be important for May and the Greens going
forward. It might actually represent a
watershed moment for the Green Party of Canada – especially if it leads to the
NDP losing the B.C. coast, and British Columbians ultimately electing a bunch
of Greens to parliament. Mulcair’s
deflection and slipperiness on this one issue might be enough to change the
face of Canada’s Lower House forever.

Although it might not.
There are a lot of British Columbians who support Kinder-Morgan. Maybe the issue of tankers plying the waters
of B.C.’s coast and jamming up Vancouver’s harbour aren’t ultimately as
important to some as, say, terrorism or daycare. But I’m not so sure. I think that what May did last night will
have resonance – and it’s why that I’m reluctant to suggest that she and the
Greens were the losers of the debate last night. As long as the NDP refuses to take a public
position on Kinder-Morgan (and to a lesser extent, Energy East), the more
likely it is that Greens will be elected in B.C. And after last night’s exchange at a
nationally-televised debate, it’s going to be very difficult now for Mulcair to
change his mind. NDP strategists might
have to start praying for some sort of ecological disaster to use as a reason
for road to Damascus conversion moment for their leader.

So the pipeline issue is one of the matters that leaves the “real”
winner of last night’s debate in doubt.
It’s a hanging chad, and it will ultimately need to be counted before a
more definitive statement about winners and losers can be made. Of course, by the time it’s counted, no one
will care about who won the early August debate.

The Real Hanging Chad: May's Media Mission Accomplished (?)

The other hanging chad actually has to do with May’s first
mission – did she make the case to the media that she should be invited to the
Globe & Mail and Munk Debate debates?
Based on last night’s and this morning’s response, it’s clearly in doubt
that she made the case. However, we know
that debate-based media coverage has a tendency to morph over a few days. What was the story on debate night doesn’t
always prove to be “the story” emerging from the debate after a few days of
reflection. And while May was clearly
not the story last night or this morning, let’s wait and see if she emerges as “the
story” over the next few days.

For whatever reason, the media’s expectation of May’s
performance in the debate were pretty low going into last night. Suggestions in the media that she was able to
“hold her own” show that the media didn’t put a lot of stock into her ability
to prove she belonged on the stage with the other candidates – maybe because
she has been shut out in the past, and will be shut out in the future. So “holding her own” might have come as a
surprise. But did she really just “hold
her own”, or did she in fact stand up and demand that the media start paying
attention to her and the Greens in a way that they haven’t previously – even without
a knockout blow?

The knockout would have helped – if today’s media narrative
was about how May skewered Harper on something, there would be no question that
the Globe & Mail and Munk Debates would change their minds and invite May
to participate. But was May’s
performance last night enough for them to reconsider? Maybe it was – the next few days will be
critical. If the stories from pundits in
this weekend’s papers lead to questions about debate organizers not inviting
May after her performance on Thursday night, the matter may very well start to
gain enough traction that Canadians start demanding debate organizers to change
their minds – similar to what happened in 2008 when the Broadcast Consortium
initially refused to invite May, but ultimately did.

It may not even have to be Canadians who lead this
charge. Given that the Globe & Mail
is a media outlet, what other media have to say about them can have a pretty
big impact on their decisions. It may be
enough that the political pundits lead the charge. I’ll be looking for media reaction – and the
reaction of partisan strategists – over the weekend. I’m already seen some evidence that May might
be “the story” of the debate. Pundits
like to write about “wonkish” stuff like Twitter mentions. They also get into the the inside baseball of
campaigns. And let’s face it, who doesn’t
love an underdog story? Some of this is
starting to leak out into the mediasphere.
By Sunday, it could be a flood, and May will be “the story”.

Right now, though, May is the hanging chad. She was either the biggest loser – or she
might be its biggest winner. And last
night’s debate might just change everything – or nothing.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Locally produced food can be healthier and tastier than
mass-produced food products that sometimes travel across oceans and continents
before reaching our plates. The
production and distribution of local food keeps more money circulating in our
local economies. With Northern Ontario
experiencing a mini-renaissance in agriculture, it makes sense for all of us to
start paying more attention to how we benefit from locally produced and
distributed food.

Right now, purchasing locally produced food in Northern
Ontario can be a chore. Most of the food
products available at grocery store chains are produced outside of the province.
However, things have started to change
with the development of local food hubs, like Eat Local Sudbury. Farmer’s markets seem to be popping up in
communities throughout the north, including a new market in Val Caron which
will open its doors this August. And of
course many of us are getting in touch with our own inner-farmer by
participating in community and backyard gardening projects.

Some smaller scale farmers are distributing their locally-grown
produce directly to the public through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
initiatives. Individuals or families can
purchase a CSA share in a crop to help finance the farm operation. In return, throughout
the growing year, fresh fruit and in-season vegetables straight from farm
fields are provided to the share holder.

While discussions around food security have become
mainstream, Canada, which lacks a national food strategy, continues to lag
behind other developed nations. Our food
systems are increasingly being threatened by climate change-related impacts in
the form of more frequent and disastrous severe weather events, and disease and
pest migration. Longer growing seasons
in a warmer world may create some opportunities for Canadian agriculture, but
costs may outweigh the benefits for industrial-scale agriculture that relies on
fossil fueled thousand mile supply chains.

The need to curtail carbon pollution as part of a global
effort to combat climate change will have an impact on the price of food as a
result of higher transportation costs.
The further food travels before reaching your plate, the more climate
changing greenhouse gases are emitted.
By building the costs of pollution into the price of goods, locally
produced and distributed food should experience a growing advantage over
foreign competition.

Despite the benefits that producing more food locally have
on the environment and local economies, the health of our local food systems is
threatened by governmental policies which favour large industrial-scale farm
operations. Marketplace interventions like chicken quotas shut out small scale
local egg producers. The absence of
pollution pricing creates a transportation subsidy that artificially lowers the
price of imported food. These subsidies may be enshrined in international trade
agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which doesn’t even acknowledge
the reality of “climate change”, and which may bind the hands of future
governments wishing to take more significant action to address climate change.

As we move ahead into the 21st Century, it seems
clear that the necessary actions we take reduce our fossil fuel emissions will
have impacts on the way food reaches our plates. The longer that we delay implementing a
national food strategy which includes carbon pollution pricing, the more we delay
creating the truly robust and resilient local food systems that we will need to
help fuel our economy – and ourselves.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)